James vs Paul

[Sargento]

Now, this is a very controversial topic but one of the most important because may lead (and it does many times) to dissimulation of the gospel... it is the legs of many unbelievers, so it must be exposed so that the true believers understand and have no stumbling reason...


I ask you all that carefully read the following and be sincere about your answers.

We have to man in the bible analyzing the same event and both of them reach one conclusion about it to emphasize what they're preaching.

Paul says:

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath {whereof} to glory; but not before God.
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
{Saying}, Blessed {are} they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Blessed {is} the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Romans 4:1-8


And James says:


Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? {Seest...: or, Thou seest}
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
James 2:21-24



They both use this same event (Abraham) to reach a conclusion for what they're preaching... tell me, are these man preaching the same gospel?
What conclusion do they reach about Abraham's justification?

I await your sincere answer.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Paul is referring to real faith that is persuaded by GOD, places confidence in what he says, and trusts for him to bring to pass what he says he will do. It is an obedience that requires the working of both heart and mind together.

James is referring to faith as mental belief that is an image of reality, and of itself cannot save a person. Abraham's action proved his faith was real because his heart compelled him to act on his mental belief.

 

[Sargento]

I ROSE...

No, that's not what I asked... I asked if they reach the same conclusion about Abrahams justification or if are they preaching the same gospel (way to be saved).

There's only one faith, James is not talking about true or fake, his talking about FAITH.
And regarding to faith Paul says that Abraham was justified by faith only, but James claims Abraham was justified by works and not faith only to prove that justification by faith its a lie.
So much he even says it directly (again):

What {doth it} profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
James 2:14

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

No, that's not what I asked... I asked if they reach the same conclusion about Abrahams justification or if are they preaching the same gospel (way to be saved).

There's only one faith, James is not talking about true or fake, his talking about FAITH.
And regarding to faith Paul says that Abraham was justified by faith only, but James claims Abraham was justified by works and not faith only to prove that justification by faith its a lie.
So much he even says it directly (again):

What {doth it} profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
James 2:14

They're using the same word, but describing it different ways. Paul uses faith in its true sense that I described above. James is distinguishing between the mental belief that is called faith and the true faith. That is why he said the former is useless ('can that faith') because even the devils believe, i.e. know in their minds, have a mental image.

There are lots of Christians today who say the believe in Christ, that are both telling the truth and lying. They have a mental belief that Jesus is lord, but their actions prove that they really don't have the true faith I described above. That faith (only mental belief) cannot save a person.

 

[Sargento]

Hi ChristRoseFromTheDead, you are not answering my question.

No, that's not what I asked... I asked if they reach the same conclusion about Abrahams justification or if are they preaching the same gospel (way to be saved).

About the "('can that faith')" you mentioned, it only appears in the most recent translations because the most precise ones say "CAN FAITH" , there's no "that"... however I'm not going to debate this, nor will I use it has an argument... I just find it funny to see the newer translations rounding up things... but like I said, I won't use this as an argument, and also the correct translation can be understood by what is being explained.

No, they are not talking about different faiths, they're talking about Abraham faith... and while Paul says that Abraham was justified by faith WITHOUT WORKS James is saying he not justified by faith but by works.

Faith is spiritual, works do not mean faith nor faith means works, that's what Paul is teaching in Romans 4:1-8 ...

Paul doesn't just says Abraham was justified by faith, but he is careful enough to say WITHOUT WORKS ... isn't this the faith you said James was talking about??

 

[biggandyy]

No, he is not giving the answer you are looking for. His response was his response. To say he isn't answering the question is disingenuous at best and betrays you have an agenda rather than attempting to engage in conversation. His answer was well reasoned, concise, and effective.

 

[williemac]

It helps to examine the entire context in James. The works that he referred to had nothing to do with morality. In fact, there was another example given. It was the works of Rahab the harlot. In that case, she was told that if she helped God's messengers, she would be spared. Her response was proof that she believed what she was told. This justified her. It was the same case with Abraham. The point was that he proved through his response that he believed God. His works supported what he believed.

Paul was not opposed to works that came from faith. But the justification he spoke of was justification to life. Paul then expands on his teachings by revealing that through faith we receive the promise of life and the promise of the Holy Spirit. We are then called to bear the fruit of this life. He called this "putting on the new man" (Eph.4:24) . This is what all of life has in common. It is fruitful. If it isn't, as with the fig tree that Jesus cursed, it is worthless.

This is the context that James used. In his letter, he commented on the quality of life that he was observing with some of his fellow converted Jews. He noticed that their love was disingenuous. He was looking at their fruit. His point to them was that if they indeed were of the faith, they would be bearing fruit. Love is the topic of James. He used the word 'works', likely because that is the language that was most familiar with them. But the entire context shows what he was talking about.

What we can learn from combining James and Paul's perspectives is that faith has a purpose. It is the means by which we receive God's promises. But if the promises are not evident in one's life, he may not have received them. And if he did not receive them, faith is absent. This was James' point. In so many words, he was asking them, "if you really have faith....where's the love?" . The conclusion...if one lack's fruit, he lacks the faith that was required to receive the necessary life that produces it.

Therefore, the fruit justifies the existence of the faith. This is the main difference between Paul's comment and James' comment. James was talking about justifying one's faith. But in both cases, the real issue is in whether or not one believes God. In the case of Abraham and Rahab, what they did was proof that they believed Him. Therefore their works (what they did) justified their faith in God's promise. In Paul's case, he simplified it by saying that one;s faith justifies him to receive the promise. With both authors, the point is that God made a promise and we are to believe Him.


In reply to the op, I strongly suggest that we use some skill in bible interpretation. The first rule of thumb is to know, understand, and consider, the context.
The tragedy of not following this rule is seen when some use James to cause a person to use their works for justification to life. Such a motive will reveal, not that one believes life is a gift, but rather that life is not a gift.
The improper use of James will support unbelief rather than faith. Doing the right things for the wrong reasons is as deadly as not doing them at all.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

About the "('can that faith')" you mentioned, it only appears in the most recent translations because the most precise ones say "CAN FAITH" , there's no "that"... however I'm not going to debate this, nor will I use it has an argument... I just find it funny to see the newer translations rounding up things... but like I said, I won't use this as an argument, and also the correct translation can be understood by what is being explained.

That's true about the 'that'. My quotation was a recollection from long ago. However, the text does say the faith (definite article), which is referring back to the previous part of the sentence that describes a belief without heart obedience. In other words, James isn't asking if faith, per se, can save a person, but if the kind of faith that is lacking in love can save a person. And the answer to that is no because GOD's law is to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.

Paul echoes this truth by saying:

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love. Galatians 5:6

Paul doesn't just says Abraham was justified by faith, but he is careful enough to say WITHOUT WORKS ... isn't this the faith you said James was talking about??

Paul and James are talking about the same faith; they are just speaking from different perspectives.

Paul was a theologian and scholar who framed things in a law vs. faith dialectic. One of his chief concerns as apostle to the nations was defending the faith against those of the circumcision who tried to bring believers in the nations under the yoke of the law. His view was abstract and theological in nature. He addresses the necessity of having a genuine faith in other places.

James, on the other hand, was most likely an ex-carpenter who viewed things more pragmatically, and definitely within the context of the circumcision. He really didn't have the same concerns for the faith versus law tension that Paul had. So his admonition is addressing a different problem altogether - hypocrisy.

 

[Sargento]

HI BiggAndyy...

No, he is not giving the answer you are looking for. His response was his response. To say he isn't answering the question is disingenuous at best and betrays you have an agenda rather than attempting to engage in conversation. His answer was well reasoned, concise, and effective.

No it wasn't, to validate what he said he has to ignore what I've shown... he took one part of what is written and made a theory out of it, but for that theory to stand it has to face all that is written, not just parts.
And he did not answered what I ask... Now if you have a better answer I will listen to it.



Williemac...

You too made a theory, but have not answered what I ask.

Rose...

That's true about the 'that'. My quotation was a recollection from long ago. However, the text does say the faith (definite article), which is referring back to the previous part of the sentence that describes a belief without heart obedience. In other words, James isn't asking if faith, per se, can save a person, but if the kind of faith that is lacking in love can save a person. And the answer to that is no because GOD's law is to love our neighbor as we love ourselves.

Do you want me to believe that if it was written "the" you would not use it the way you're using "that"? You would not say "once it says "the" it means that faith without works"... REALLY??

But like I said, I won't use this as an argument nor will I discuss it ... just the message in James words it.

Paul echoes this truth by saying:


For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love. Galatians 5:6

I know Paul says this... that's why he was in trouble here:

And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver {him} into the hands of the Gentiles.
And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.
Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.
And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem.
There went with us also {certain} of the disciples of Caesarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge.
And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
And the {day} following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
And when they heard {it}, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise {their} children, neither to walk after the customs.
What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave {their} heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but {that} thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written {and} concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from {things} offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. (THE MESSAGE)
Atos 21:11-25


And Paul, being jew to the jews, submited just like in the first meeting where Peter defended him:



And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, {and said}, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and {of} the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command {them} to keep the law of Moses. {rose...: or, rose up, said they, certain}
And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men {and} brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as {he did} unto us;
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men {and} brethren, hearken unto me:
Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and {from} fornication, and {from} things strangled, and {from} blood. (SAME MESSAGE)
For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Atos 15:1-21





Again, Paul kept his mouth shut being a Jew to the Jews... however in the front of gentiles he did not behave like that:



But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before {them} all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
We {who are} Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, (this same fight) even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, {is} therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness {come} by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Gálatas 2:11-21




But you still didn't answered my question.

Paul and James are talking about the same faith; they are just speaking from different perspectives.

Paul was a theologian and scholar who framed things in a law vs. faith dialectic. One of his chief concerns as apostle to the nations was defending the faith against those of the circumcision who tried to bring believers in the nations under the yoke of the law. His view was abstract and theological in nature. He addresses the necessity of having a genuine faith in other places.

James, on the other hand, was most likely an ex-carpenter who viewed things more pragmatically, and definitely within the context of the circumcision. He really didn't have the same concerns for the faith versus law tension that Paul had. So his admonition is addressing a different problem altogether - hypocrisy.

Different perspectives? Rose, PAUL SAYS WITHOUT WORKS... it's not even ambiguous, it's precisely the opposite.
One says Abraham was justified by works, and the other that he was NOT by works but by faith WITHOUT works.


Why do you all avoid answering what I ask?? You ramble around, and make theorys, and give opinions, you do all EXCEPT answering to what I ask... Why is that?

Do James and Paul say Abraham was justified by the same means? Do they preach the same way to salvation?

 

[williemac]

Williemac...

You too made a theory, but have not answered what I ask.

Now let me see...you replied to several people all at one time..including me. Based on the timeline from my post to yours, by my estimation you could not have spent any time whatsoever reading what I said. But I could have made that conclusion by your comment.

A theory? Really? What I did was follow proper protocol in bible interpretation. And in doing so, I most certainly answered what you asked. The real issue is that you don't accept my answer. But for your benefit I will put it more plainly. Paul and James are not in conflict concerning the way to salvation. There is your answer. Your problem is that you are looking at each example, each quote from the two men, and comparing them without considering what it is that they each meant in context. You did not do what I suggested. I suggested that this cannot be properly discussed apart from the understanding of the first rule of bible interpretation...context!

You are making up your own rules. Anyone can win a debate if they dictate or control the rules of it. This is not about winning. This is about understanding truth. You want to take shortcuts. Knock yourself out!

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Different perspectives? Rose, PAUL SAYS WITHOUT WORKS... it's not even ambiguous, it's precisely the opposite.
One says Abraham was justified by works, and the other that he was NOT by works but by faith WITHOUT works.
Why do you all avoid answering what I ask?? You ramble around, and make theorys, and give opinions, you do all EXCEPT answering to what I ask... Why is that?
Do James and Paul say Abraham was justified by the same means? Do they preach the same way to salvation?

Paul is referring to works of law; James is referring to works of faith, i.e., love. Big difference; one that I suspect you are trying to obscure.

The answers to both your questions are yes.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

If Abraham had just sat on his sofa and proclaimed he had enough faith to trust God in everything .... we could all say .... how about proving it ... !!

And by "his works" Abraham did prove it .... he physically took Issac up the mountain , prepared an altar and a fire ... he never balked once ... he was prepared to go through with it.

Invisible Faith was the main ingredient .... but it was Abraham's visible "works" which proved it.

How many of us here today could submit to a beheading rather than renounce Jesus Christ ?

Going thru with the beheading would be "our works" ... proving we really did have the faith .... even if the beheading was halted at the very last moment.

What if you had to put your own son on the beheading apparatus instead of yourself .... that would be even harder .... would it not .... ??

And that is what Abraham had to do

And that is what God did with his only Son.

Jesus took our place on the sacrificial altar .

And "his works" on the cross proved it.

And God did not stop it at the last moment .

 

[aspen]

The early church accepted Paul and James as authentic apostles and both of their perspectives of the same gospel. This is not a controversial topic.

 

[Dodo_David]

OK. I'll submit my two bits to this discussion.

First, here is James 2:14-17 :

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

So, James is talking about a dead faith. He is explaining how to tell if one has the living faith that Paul describes.

Let me use an analogy. Suppose that you plant an orange seed in the ground, and as a result, an orange tree sprouts.

In such a situation, when does the orange tree become an orange tree?

Does it become an orange tree only after it has oranges growing on it, or was it an orange tree from the time that it sprouted from the orange seed?

James would tell us that a fully-mature orange tree will produce oranges, or else it really isn't an orange tree.
However, James would still acknowledge that the orange tree was an orange tree from the time it sprouted, before it produced oranges.

 

[HammerStone]

This is really a non-issue, context is key.

James 2:18
But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.

And then later, another analogy seals it at the end of the same chapter:

James 2:26
As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

 

[Sargento]

WILLIEMAC...

Now let me see...you replied to several people all at one time..including me. Based on the timeline from my post to yours, by my estimation you could not have spent any time whatsoever reading what I said. But I could have made that conclusion by your comment.

A theory? Really? What I did was follow proper protocol in bible interpretation. And in doing so, I most certainly answered what you asked. The real issue is that you don't accept my answer. But for your benefit I will put it more plainly. Paul and James are not in conflict concerning the way to salvation. There is your answer. Your problem is that you are looking at each example, each quote from the two men, and comparing them without considering what it is that they each meant in context. You did not do what I suggested. I suggested that this cannot be properly discussed apart from the understanding of the first rule of bible interpretation...context!

You are making up your own rules. Anyone can win a debate if they dictate or control the rules of it. This is not about winning. This is about understanding truth. You want to take shortcuts. Knock yourself out!

I did read your message... and was a theory in your "proper protocol in bible interpretation" that ignored my question. I don't accept it because it ignores what is written... that's why.

Paul and James are not in conflict concerning the way to salvation.

Ok, now there's an answer ... now show me this but not by theorys, by what's written.

Or simpler yet ... HOW WAS ABRAHAM JUSTIFIED?


ChristRoseFromTheDead...

Works of the law?? In Abraham??
No, they're just talking about works, however if there's any mention the law of Moses is James's before using these examples to make his point which is "faith cannot save":

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one {point}, he is guilty of all.
For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. {he that: or, that law which}
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
James 2:10-12

Even if he calls it the law of liberty...


Arnie Manitoba...

When was Abraham justified? When he prove it or when he believed GOD?
James quotes this...


And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
James 2:23



When did this (" Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness") happen? When Abraham believed in GOD or 20 years later when he gave his son like James is trying to dissimulate?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Works of the law?? In Abraham??
No, they're just talking about works, however if there's any mention the law of Moses is James's before using these examples to make his point which is "faith cannot save":

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one {point}, he is guilty of all.
For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. {he that: or, that law which}
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
James 2:10-12

Even if he calls it the law of liberty...

No, James is talking about works of faith in Abraham. Paul's discussions center around works of law, i.e., Moses. If you think works of law and works of faith (fruit of the spirit) are the same, you are absolutely clueless...

No man will be justified by works of law, and no man will be saved apart from works of faith (i.e., love of the brethren)

James is alluding to the law of Moses in James 2:9-11, and the law of Christ (law of liberty) in James 2:12.

What are the great commandments of Moses' law?

• Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Matthew 22:36-40

What does it mean to love GOD with all the heart, soul, and mind?

• For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 1 John 5:3
• If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 14:15
• He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. John 14:21

And what are GOD's commandments?

• This is [GOD's] commandment (law of Christ), That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he (Jesus) gave us commandment. 1 John 3:23

When was Abraham justified? When he prove it or when he believed GOD?
James quotes this...

When did this (" Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness") happen? When Abraham believed in GOD or 20 years later when he gave his son like James is trying to dissimulate?

It happened exactly when the bible says it did: when Abraham believed. James says his justification reached its perfection and fullness when he offered Isaac 20 years later.

Ok, now there's an answer ... now show me this but not by theorys, by what's written.

The problem with this is that you either are grossly obtuse, or are purposely equivocating regarding what is written for your own agenda. I suspect the former is the root, and the latter is the ensuing fruit of unbelief.

 

[Sargento]

Dodo...

OK. I'll submit my two bits to this discussion.

First, here is James 2:14-17 :


So, James is talking about a dead faith. He is explaining how to tell if one has the living faith that Paul describes.

Let me use an analogy. Suppose that you plant an orange seed in the ground, and as a result, an orange tree sprouts.

In such a situation, when does the orange tree become an orange tree?

Does it become an orange tree only after it has oranges growing on it, or was it an orange tree from the time that it sprouted from the orange seed?

James would tell us that a fully-mature orange tree will produce oranges, or else it really isn't an orange tree.
However, James would still acknowledge that the orange tree was an orange tree from the time it sprouted, before it produced oranges.

That's not what he's saying, but even if it was that's wrong too!! Faith does not need works to be real, nor works are a faithful testimonial of faith.

And this is shown when Paul says WITHOUT WORKS... that's what he's teaching, and to accept this you have do reject James, or by accepting James you have to reject Paul.
And to support their teaching they booth use the same event but each one makes a different conclusion has a prof to what they're saying... is this so hidden?

The orange tree is an orange tree even while seed, but this does not apply because carnal deeds are not the fruit of the spirit which is the tree... the tree is the spiritual man (not faith) and the fruit is faith (not deeds).



What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath {whereof} to glory; but not before God.
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
{Saying}, Blessed {are} they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Blessed {is} the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Romans 4:1-8


Hammerstone...

This is really a non-issue, context is key.

James 2:18
But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.

And then later, another analogy seals it at the end of the same chapter:

James 2:26
As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

But Paul says that faith without works is valid ... if deeds show faith than I know many atheists full of faith.
Or haven't you ever seen good deeds coming out of a good man?

ROSE...
So in your conclusion you're saved by works anyway.!!?.. what kind of grace is that?

FAITH AND LOVE ARE NOT WORKS... It's the nature of the reborn.
You have faith in love in your spirit or your hands?




TO ALL:

Is it impossible to have faith, true faith without works?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

So in your conclusion you're saved by works anyway.!!?.. what kind of grace is that?
FAITH AND LOVE ARE NOT WORKS... It's the nature of the reborn.
You have faith in love in your spirit or your hands?

TO ALL:
Is it impossible to have faith, true faith without works?

As I said before, you're equivocating with the word works. Works of law (Paul/Moses) are something we do of our own will. Works of faith (James/Christ) are fruits of the spirit that are done through us by our yielding to GOD's will in faith.

I suspect the equivocation is both deceitful and willful, and that you are a philonomian (i.e., law lover).

The answer to your question is yes, if works means works of faith (i.e., fruits of the spirit).

The fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth. Ephesians 5:9

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. Galatians 5:22-23

But if works means works of law (i.e., Moses), then the question is self-contradictory, and fallacious.

 

[williemac]

WILLIEMAC...

I did read your message... and was a theory in your "proper protocol in bible interpretation" that ignored my question. I don't accept it because it ignores what is written... that's why.




Ok, now there's an answer ... now show me this but not by theorys, by what's written.

Or simpler yet ... HOW WAS ABRAHAM JUSTIFIED?

Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. He was justified by faith. His works, as James called it, was simply a test that he was given to see if he believed God. He had previously determined to gain a son through the bondwoman, indicating that he was not yet convinced that God would or could fulfill His promise through his barren wife. Later on, when that was proven by God through a miracle, there was a test of his faith in the instruction to sacrifice his son of promise. Thus Abraham's willingness to go along with this strange request indicated that he believed God. It was always about faith.

James, in his letter, was asking them if they had faith. He did this, either sincerely or tongue in cheek, because he did not see the kind of fruit that a believer usually displays. He was not demanding that they add works to their faith. He was questioning their faith by their works. The conclusion is that if they were lacking anything, it was faith. As in Abraham's case, James was requesting that they show proof of their faith.

This is why I mentioned context. And by the way, not having personally attended any formal training, I can only relay what I have learned about bible interpretation. What I have learned from my own studies and experience, and confirmed by pretty much every bible scholar of formal training, is that there are methods and rules of thumb involved in interpreting scripture...not the least of which is to look at a passage in its context.
You have shown me something about yourself in your describing my comment on context as a theory. It is more than a mere theory. It is a method. If one fails to use this method, the result will be to misunderstand a text. My opinion is that if a person does his homework, they will have a better chance of understanding. My advice is to read the entire letter from James and see if I said anything that was just a theory.

To reply to your most recent question...yes. It is impossible to have true faith without works. However, as the previous reply has also said..the works are the result of what the faith has brought into the person's life. Faith has a purpose in the new covenant. The purpose is to receive that which God is offering...a new nature through the new birth. Dogs bark because they ARE dogs. They are not working at becoming dogs. Believers do good works (fruit) because of who they have become through faith. The works are after the fact. Works cannot justify a person to receive what they already have received. They simply confirm the faith that received life from God. They offer evidence that the new birth has occurred, and will be rewarded appropriately on the judgment seat of Christ.

And FYI, to those whom it concerns... God does not require this evidence to know if the faith was sincere. He knew it was when He granted the everlasting life to the believer. James told his readers..."show me". He did not say "show God". cheers, Howie